vpb:Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.

Nabb1:No matter the outcome, we're probably screwed but at least someone is going to haul in a metric ton of billable hours.

Between advertising and lawyers, I believe that our economy is becoming election based. Maybe other countries will begin outsourcing their elections to us and we can have a new election on the first Tuesday of every month.

vpb:Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

StopLurkListen:The other likely alternative isn't violence, it's one side completely standing down and putting their faith in the counting process and judiciary doing their job effectively and objectively.

Except that's not what happened in 2000.

What happened in 2000 was Bush got a few hundred more votes than Al Gore so there was series of recounts. Did you remember the part where Al Gore sent lawyers to every single county in the state to have as many absentee ballots disqualifies as possible?

Or did you remember that elections are a legislative process but Al Gore circumvented the Republican Florida legislature and went to a more sympathetic Democrat controlled court?

Or did you remember what the SCOTUS ruling actually was? Which was that there were rules, the rules were followed, and that you can't go to court over it after the fact to change the rules?

Weaver95:Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Some of these chucklefarks could use a good week in Syria to understand what the "ammunition box" part of their chants mean. You'd think the American Revolution was a joyful jaunt of freedom and patriotism and they growled the brits out of town, instead of a years-long violent rebellion with 100,000 bodies in the ground and countless more mutilated.

I don't think the Dems will go down without a fight this time. We saw what happened the last time they tried to play nice. And you just know the Repubs will try to pull some BS impeachment nonsense if they lose. This could get extremely ugly.

vpb:Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

Citrate1007:It would be EPIC if it was too close to call, went to SCOTUS, and was ruled that Obama is president.......just to hear all of the butthurt Republicans turn into hypocrites.

Anything less then a crushing defeat is a roaring endorsement of Mitt's lying, etch-a-sketch campaign method. The challenger pretty much always loses to the incumbent. If Mitt's campaign of reckless disregard of facts, truth, history, and basic morality proves more successful then conventional challenges of presenting a better alternative to the status quo, then expect his campaign method to become the new norm in American politics. Let's not hope for that, because political leaders around the world are watching this with great interest.

randomjsa:StopLurkListen: The other likely alternative isn't violence, it's one side completely standing down and putting their faith in the counting process and judiciary doing their job effectively and objectively.

Except that's not what happened in 2000.

What happened in 2000 was Bush got a few hundred more votes than Al Gore so there was series of recounts. Did you remember the part where Al Gore sent lawyers to every single county in the state to have as many absentee ballots disqualifies as possible?

Or did you remember that elections are a legislative process but Al Gore circumvented the Republican Florida legislature and went to a more sympathetic Democrat controlled court?

Or did you remember what the SCOTUS ruling actually was? Which was that there were rules, the rules were followed, and that you can't go to court over it after the fact to change the rules?

Bored Horde:If Mitt's campaign of reckless disregard of facts, truth, history, and basic morality proves more successful then conventional challenges of presenting a better alternative to the status quo, then expect his campaign method to become the new norm in American politics.

When have any of those things ever decided a presidential election? It's a glorified popularity contest, nothing more.

I should amend, the recounting process consists of legal challenges to voter eligibility more so than recounting the actual vote tallies. ie: determining whether mail-in ballots were post marked in time, or how mispelled write-in votes are counted, or whether to count various "provisional" ballots cast by people who either didn't register properly, had their records "purged" or people who just plain showed up at the wrong polling station.

Weaver95:vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.

Lucky thing they gave it to the guy with the most votes in Florida. Whew.

Weaver95:vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.

We'll see. One of my deepest, most tinfoily fears is that it could happen again and then the Republicans would just go hard-core "Why do you hate America?" on anyone who questions it, like they did after 9/11. I've seen nothing in the past 12 years to suggest that the Dems wouldn't back down again under the right circumstances.

biyaaatci:I don't think the Dems will go down without a fight this time. We saw what happened the last time they tried to play nice. And you just know the Repubs will try to pull some BS impeachment nonsense if they lose. This could get extremely ugly.

You really should just unplug from everything for awhile and try relaxing.

Bored Horde:The challenger pretty much always loses to the incumbent. If Mitt's campaign of reckless disregard of facts, truth, history, and basic morality proves more successful then conventional challenges of presenting a better alternative to the status quo, then expect his campaign method to become the new norm in American politics.

Given the mass approval of things like Jersey Shore and Honney Boo, Boo, Ancient Aliens, etc. I think the American public is already there.

I believe you've hit upon the entire strategy. One of my buddies works with the voting machine industry, and he swears there ARE ironclad ways to allow for a recount. But they aren't actually using them.

I don't want to sound like a Freeper, but how could that possibly be unless it's deliberate? We have the technology to review bank transactions going back decades, but we can't review votes cast 24 hours ago?